Friday, April 18, 2008

France is urging EU countries to come up with a global initiative on food security in the wake of violence linked to price rises in basic foodstuffs.

Agriculture minister Michel Barnier said Europe could not remain passive and leave the situation to the markets.

As he spoke, UN special rapporteur Jean Ziegler accused the EU of agricultural dumping in Africa.

He said producing biofuels, a key part of the EU's plans to tackle climate change, was a "crime against humanity".

The European Union has set a target of providing 10% of its fuel for transport from biofuels by 2020, which its own environment advisers have said should be suspended.

There are fears that the use of farmland to grow crops for biofuels has reduced the scope for food production.

The European Commission said on Monday that there was no question at the moment of the target being dropped, as work was currently under way to implement it in a sustainable way.

According to a spokesman, less than 2% of EU cereal production is currently used for biofuels.

'Humanitarian tsunami'

The EU is well aware of the risks of soaring food prices and, only last week, Development Commissioner Louis Michel warned of the crisis leading to a "humanitarian tsunami" in Africa.

France will take over the presidency of the EU in July and, in a statement on Friday, four ministers made it clear that the violent response to price rises in Haiti could easily be replicated in 30 other countries.

Protests because of a big increase in the cost of rice have led to a number of deaths in Haiti as well as the fall of the government.

Mr Barnier told French radio on Monday: "We cannot, and we must not leave food for people... to the mercy of the rule of the market alone and to international speculation."

He is proposing four ideas:

Production of more and better food to enable Europe to respond to the food challenge

To bring together the efforts of various member states to help developing countries rebuild their agriculture

To redirect public development aid towards the agriculture sector

To ensure that poorer countries do not become the victims of the World Trade Organization's Doha round of negotations.

Last week, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, whose country holds the presidency of the G8 industrialised nations, calling for a "fully co-ordinated response".

He proposed urgent short-term action to tackle immediate hardship and a medium-term response in trade and agriculture.

Dumping claim

The UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, told German radio that the EU financed the exports of European agricultural surpluses to Africa, "where they are offered at one-half or one-third of their (production) price".

But a European Commission spokesman said it was an old argument that simply was not true anymore.

He said that initial reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy had done away with the link between production and subsidy and further changes would free farmers to respond better to the market.

EDMONTON — In what is being called an unprecedented move, the federal government will pay Canadian pork producers $50 million to kill off 150,000 of their pigs by the fall as the industry teeters on the brink of economic collapse.

The animals are being destroyed at slaughter plants and on pig farms in a bid to cull the swine breeding herd by 10 per cent.

Most of the meat is to be used for pet food or otherwise disposed of, but up to 25 per cent of it will be made available to Canadian food banks.

"The value that the market is providing to hog farmers for their breeding animals has fallen to virtually nothing," said Martin Rice, executive director of the Canadian Pork Council on Monday.

"It is due to the economic collapse of the industry. These are farms that families have spent decades building up. We cannot see relief coming. It is agonizing for them. It takes a toll."

Producers are weighed down by the cumulative impact of low prices, increasing feeds costs and the high value of the loonie. They are also facing new country-of-origin labelling rules for meat products in the United States that are to go into effect later this year.

Farmers who wish to take part in the cull can apply for federal compensation payments until the end of August. Those who qualify for payments must agree to kill off an entire breeding barn of pigs and not to restock the barn for three years. The program is retroactive to November 2007 and farmers have until this November to complete the cull.

The council estimates that about 50,000 pigs have already been destroyed, with about 100,000 more to come by the fall.

To ensure that the animals are treated in a humane way, producers are being encouraged to ship their pigs to approved slaughter plants. Producers who live in areas without plants will be asked to ship their animals to a province with such a facility.

But there is nothing to prevent producers from killing the animals on their farms themselves.

"We want to minimize the amount of on-farm euthanizing," Rice said. "Before we would approve that application we would need to know how it was going to be done — that it was going to be done humanely and in an environmentally sound way."

Rice said the U.S. government’s decision to require country-of-origin labelling on meat products has made a bad situation even worse.

Producers are dealing with American companies that don’t want to buy Canadian hogs or meat products after years of doing business because they aren’t sure how consumers will respond to such labels. The situation is squeezing the hope out of the Canadian industry, which exports much of what it produces to the United States.

"They cannot look forward to a rebound in their market," Rice said.

But as pork producers suffer through the downturn, more than 670 food banks across Canada hope to benefit from the swine cull.

The Canadian Association of Food Banks is working with the pork council to come up with a plan to distribute some of the meat to the 720,000 Canadians who depend on food banks each month. "We are pleased that the government is allowing some of the product within this program to come to the food bank community," said Katharine Schmidt, executive director of the Canadian Association of Food Banks in Toronto. "We are working as hard as we can to see how much we can actually get into the hands of those who need it most.

"One of the food groups that food banks are always in need of is protein."

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The 2004 DemocraticNational Convention may be remembered most for a young and energeticsenator that immediately drew comparison to the Kennedys. Obama'sspeech launched his name and image into the public spotlight, and hisfresh style of rhetoric filled a growing anti-war political void –He voted against the Iraq war and wasn't afraid to criticize it'shandling. Excitement and support for the senator eventuallysnowballed into his current presidential campaign. He enjoys apopular image as a liberal democrat, and his harsh criticism of theIraq war has earned him support from a population united in it'sdiscontent with the current government. To a select crowd ofAmericans, Obama preaches against the handling of the Iraq war. Toother more private groups, Obama advocates military strikes on newmiddle eastern countries. Obama has aligned himself with severallobbying firms and nongovernmental organizations who seek further USmilitarization of the world. In several speeches and essays, Obamamakes his foreign policy goals clear – and he is not anti-war. IsObama intentionally sending a deceptive message to his constituency?

In a recent speechgiven to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, Obamaoutlines a plan for U.S. hegemony. He suggests polarizing politicalalignments that are already breeding anti-U.S. sentiment.Specifically, Obama pledges unfaltering military support to Israel.The U.S. has long supported Israel – this year they were given $30billion for defense of the young state. To put this in perspective,less than $7 billion has been federally granted to rebuild homesdestroyed after hurricane Katrina. Although the U.S. has alwaysgiven billions in aid to Israel, his alliance backs preemptivestrikes against countries deemed a threat. Israel is unpopular inthe region, and is threatened by Iran's desire for modern nuclearenergy in the future. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, Obama states“We should take no option, including military action, off thetable”. The US has already constructed massive permanent militarybases in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve as hubs for such an operation.The fleet of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf continues togrow, while politicians and media simultaneously hype a nonexistentenemy. This reckless policy leaves the U.S. on the brink of fullscale war at all times.

Obama differed frommany of his peers by admitting the Iraq war was heavily motivated byIraq's oil reserves. Iran's oilfields, and the military buildup ofthe Persian Gulf creates and incentive for military action. It hasbeen questioned if the U.S. military even has the capability ofsecuring the strategic oil reserve. Iran has some of the mostlucrative oilfields in the region, and provides energy to Asia andEurope. International economies would be disenfranchised with the USmilitary disruption of its energy supplies. Meddling in othercountries' foreign affairs has spurred backlash against the U.S.This phenomenon is referred to as “blowback”, or, theconsequences from provoking actions. Ignoring this cause and effect,Obama advocates troops in Iraq be redeployed to Pakistan andAfghanistan to fight amorphous groups of “terrorists”. Regardingthe war on terror, Obama differs from his colleagues in that he doesnot believe nuclear weapons should be used – a small concession foran ambitious military operation. This policy still backs preemptivestrikes and the further militarization of the middle east, all at theexpense of US resources.

Obama outlines hisambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairsmagazine. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on ForeignRelations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which heis a member. Established in the 1920's and headquartered in NewYork, its membership includes prominent politicians and businesselite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeksto centralize both political power and market power to craftlegislation outside the checks and balances of democracy. The CFR israrely mentioned by the mainstream media, making it difficult tofully gauge its influence. When it is mentioned in the press, it islikely whitewashed as trivial or irrelevant. Notable members of theCFR include:

Dick Cheney

John Kerry

Bill Clinton

Al Gore

Ronald Reagan

George H. W. Bush

Gerald Ford

Richard Nixon

John, David &Nelson Rockefeller

Condolezza Rice

Paul Wolfowitz

Alan Greenspan

Colon Powell

Henry Kissinger

Angelina Jolie(Yes, the actress has a five year term membership as anambassador)

Its membership listis a who's who of Washington and Wall St. elite going back nearly acentury. It should not be surprising that most presidentialcandidates in the 2008 election are CFR members. Candidates do notadvertise their CFR membership to the public. They pose as“liberals” and “conservatives” to control all aspects of thedebate. The CFR has stacked the deck for the 2008 election withseveral members in the race from both sides of the isle:

Democrat CFRCandidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Chris Dodd

Bill Richardson

Republican CFRCandidates:

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

Fred Thompson

Newt Gingrich

The mainstreammedia's self-proclaimed “top tier” candidates are united in theirCFR membership, while an unwitting public perceives politicaldiversity. The unwitting public has been conditioned toinstinctively deny such a mass deception could ever be hidden inplain view. Presidential Candidate & Congressman Ron Paul isthe only “top tier” candidate who is not a member of the CFR.

Although manypoliticians hold membership, It must be noted that the Council onForeign Relations is a non-governmental organization. The CFR'smembership is a union of politicians, bankers, and scholars, withseveral large businesses holding additional corporate memberships.Corporate members include:

Halliburton ofDubai

British Petroleum

Dutch Royal Shell

Exxon Mobile

General Electric(NBC)

Chevron

Lockheed Martin

MerckPharmaceuticals

News Corp (FOX)

Bloomberg

IBM

Time Warner

JP Morgan/ ChaseManhattan

& several othermajor financial institutions

Members are unitedin their interventionist intentions with the goal of a consolidatedglobal governance. The CFR's mission is to influence policy throughthe reach of its members and publications. Those who study the CFRideology are recruited and cultured for membership. The best andbrightest university students are taught to propagate the CFR model.Individuals who both subscribe to the CFR ideology and can bring anelement of capital (political status, business influence, money) tothe group will be given membership. Members meet at the CFRheadquarters in Manhattan and Washington DC, and round-table stylediscussions are held for its membership to discuss foreign affairsand make recommendations on policy. The CFR often creates “taskforces” to report “findings and policy prescriptions” (cfr.org)for specific current world events, and also publishes the periodicalForeign Affairs magazine. CFR authors are often found in mainstreammedia publications. In a recent issue of TIME magazine, one CFRmember writes: “The US should make (Pakistani President & USintelligence asset) Musharraf the best dictator he can be”.Another author, this time in Newsweek magazine objectively argues tothe readers that the world really isn't all that bad in an articletitled “Don't Worry, Be Happy”. Currently, the front page ofCFR.org features essays on European anti-terrorism measures, radicalIranians, and the reemergence of the nuclear threat (CFR members ingovernment control the nuclear football). Many prominentpublications are influenced and controlled by the CFR:

Time

Newsweek

US News & WorldReport

Atlantic Monthly

Forbes

& several majorpublishing houses

Members of the CFRin the media intend to inject it's pro-globalist arguments into themainstream consciousness. Although the CFR is self-described as anon-partisan association, it unabashedly promotes aone-world-government agenda without regard for US sovereignty or thedesires of the American people.

The goals of theCFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton'sGeorgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: “TheCouncil on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a societywhich originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundariesshould be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigleydiffers from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes theirplan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In hisbook Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peersin that he believes the new world order plan of global government's“role in history is significant enough to be known”. Quigleyalso admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to becontrolled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. AsQuigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw therascals out at any election without leading to any profound ofextreme shifts in policy.”. Controlling Washington elite allowedprivate central banks to “dominate the political system... ...andeconomy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of“feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although hebelieves the CFR's intentions should be more public, Quigleyunderstands the average person doesn't understand feudalism orserfdom and will never read his book.

Surprisingly, manyof its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democraticprocess. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US NavyAdmiral Chester Ward writes “The main purpose of the (CFR) ispromoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependenceand submergence into and all powerful, one world government.”.This high ranking military officer went on to explain theirprocedures for influencing policy, claiming: “Once the rulingmembers of the CFR shadow government have decided that the USgovernment should adopt a particular policy, the very substantialresearch facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments,intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confoundand discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”.

The CFR's strategyis also being used to promote world government as well as the newenvironmental agenda. Obama and most candidates have made theenvironment a major issue in the policy. The CFR has long suggesteda global tax, specifically identifying the environmental movement asa means for its advancement. All CFR candidates align themselveswith the position that the government has both the ability andresponsibility to maintain the world's environment. Good intentionedindividuals may genuinely seek environmental protection, butnongovernmental organizations are quickly capitalizing on landacquisitions and taxes in the name of global warming. While mostscientist agree the planet earth is undergoing a degree of climacticchange, the CFR admits the environmental argument will be used toerode national sovereignty and build up their global authority.Proposed “Carbon Taxes” place carbon expenditure ratings onmundane human activities. Contrary to popular misconceptions, CO2is by no means a pollutant. As an essential gas for life, plantsthrive on increased levels of CO2 which in turn they produce higherlevels of oxygen. Furthermore, carbon based life forms emit carbonto the atmosphere, hence a “Carbon Tax” is a tariff for doingnothing but maintaining life. A popular movement lead by the CFR'sown Al Gore would have you believe CO2 is the root cause ofenvironmental woes while ignoring real industrial pollution indeveloping countries. There are serious environmental problems thatare ignored in favor of issues that can be used to tax the broadpopulation.

Environmentalprotection has already lead countries to willingly surrender controlof natural resources. The US has ceded control of natural resourcesto the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) in a land grab under the guise of environmentalprotection. UNESCO is part of the United Nations, an organizationcontrolled by many CFR members like permanent US ambassador JohnBolton. The CFR's President Richard N. Haass boldly admits “Somegovernments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty toaddress the threat of global climate change.”. He adds that this“Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty... ...needs to becomeweaker.”. While it is important to be conscious of humans' effectson the earth, nongovernmental organizations like the CFR see anopportunity to redistribute wealth through selective enforcementtargeting the US. The CFR openly states its intentions of using theenvironmental movement and other emotional arguments to build upglobal authority and undermine US sovereignty.

The CFR backs otherprograms that promote regional governments. Another ambitious goalof the CFR is the implementation of regional unions under the controlof a central world government. World leaders are moving towards aregional partnership of North America consisting of Canada, the US,and Mexico. In 2005, the CFR released a report titled “Buildingan American Community” which sought to eliminate borders betweenthe three North American countries. One part of the plan called fordecreasing government control of cross-border traffic in an effort todissolve national borders. Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of thetask force that released “Building a North American Community”,names the “Amero” as a hypothetical unified North Americancurrency similar to the Euro. Carried out with precision, theprivate, run-for-profit federal reserve bank has massively devaluedthe US dollar, allowing foreign corporations to buy up US resourcesfor literal pennies on the dollar.

The European Unionis a similar model to the North American partnership. The EU washugely opposed by Europeans, and took a half century for thecomplicit European power elites to fully implement the union.During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair tried several times forthe United Kingdom's adoption of the unpopular EU constitution thatwas also staunchly rejected by French and Dutch voters. The currentPrime Minister Gordon Brown continues to advance a similarconstitution under a new name. Like the EU, American countries wouldkeep their governmental infrastructure but all policy would besuperseded by a regional constitution.

Already in place inNorth America is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov)established in a meeting between Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox,and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. The SPP consolidatesprotection of the North American Union by establishing a securityperimeter extending north of Canada to the Mexican/ Guatemalanborder. This measure was authorized under Bush's ambiguous executiveauthority, thus avoiding any congressional input or oversight. It isa precursor to a trilateral authority between the three NorthAmerican economies.

A similar measureto the SPP in the establishment of a unified North American region isthe NAFTA “Superhighway” which eliminates border restrictions onshipping, allowing imported goods destined for the US to arrive inNorth America at ports in Mexico. Rather than arriving at the portof Long Beach, imported goods would enter the US via a “port” inthe mid-west that lies along the shipping lane. This measure hasbeen unanimously opposed by US cities in proximity of the highway,but the democratic voice is ignored as the government covertlyadvances. Congress has largely looked away from the issue. Memberswho are aware of this plan avoid this issue and prefer that it staysecret, and the CFR presidential candidates will not address it. Thepresidential candidates' association with the the self-described“shadow government” compromises the the voting process anddefrauds the constituency.

Barack Obama hascaptivated voters from all parties with his refreshing new style ofrhetoric. He has the voting record to back his criticism of the Iraqwar. But like his CFR colleagues, he vows to continue the pursuit ofa shadowy enemy under the vague threat of “terrorism” - a policythat has cost citizens their personal liberties, trillions in debtand untold lives. The war on terror has been crafted to spend theUS into bankruptcy and setup a domestic police state. Moneycontinues to be being printed out of thin air by the privaterun-for-profit Federal Reserve, while China remains leveraged withover $1 trillion in US dollar holdings. In the middle east, theCFR's blank check for U.S. military operations will deplete U.S.resources while inciting sectarian strife and anti-U.S. sentiment,ignoring the history of blowback as documented by the CIA. Obama andother CFR candidates affiliation with the organization is notpromoted on their websites or in any press releases because theorganization has centralized political power and financial capital toset policy the public would otherwise oppose. The careerpoliticians in the CFR know corporate sponsorship is frowned upon byvoters. The Council is one of the major conduits between governmentand business leaders in the US. The CFR is guaranteeing power byowning all the horses in the race that is the 2008 election. Obamais captivating unlike most of his competition, undoubtedlyintelligent enough to understand his political niche. Another CFRUS president guarantees more of the same costly foreign policy thatprotects corporate interests and isolates the US. Like hiscolleagues, Barack Obama's stated foreign policy intentions fomentthe long term militarization and balkanization of the middle eastwhile resources will continue to be spent in deficit to finance anillegal foreign policy. Only when the control of the CFR is fullyexposed will the voters have a real democratic choice.

If you care, you may contribute to a "Help Jenny visit Canada" fund by making a contribution online to her Pay Pal address: jenaebdncr@gmail.com

P.S: For those Americans among you who would like to donate to Jennifer yet retain your anonymity, you may purchase an international money order in U.S. currency at any post office in America (if you still live in the U.S.). Under the sender's name you will write "Minnie-Mouse Movement" so as to retain your anonymity. Send to: P.O. Box 774, Kemptville, Ontario, Canada K0G 1J0. The money order should be addressed to: Jennifer Ann Kealey. Donations in the amounts of $25, $50, or $75 would be helpful in assisting Jennifer to visit her husband Glen on a regular weekend visit to Canada. A total sum of $15,000 plus, which is the suggested sum of the “kick back/ransom” required (by CBSA Immigration officer badge #16182)on behalf of CIC Immigration, Jason Kenney, minister is apparently required to begin the process of her husband sponsoring her permanent visitor status. They, CIC, have refused her entry under the spousal sponsorship four times in the last two years before allowing 2 visits recently.

About Me

The information presented on this site from 2008 onward is evidence that I have come across working with the "PREMISE" provided by Glen Kealey National President Canadian Institute for Political Integrity (CIPI) which he describes on his website (wordsculptor.net) It is also findings I have come across after disseminating postings from Glen Kealey and observing things in my own life.